asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions in respect of his proposals to abolish the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils.

Many councils and other bodies are discussing the details of abolition with Ministers and officials, but some continue to refuse to take part. They will have only themselves to blame if they do not like what is decided.

While commiserating with the Secretary of State on his retaining his present portfolio, in the light of his recent announcement that he is setting up two inquiries into local government finance, may I ask why he continues to ignore the call from many quarters for the setting up of an independent inquiry into finance and structure? Does he not understand that finance and structure cannot be divorced? Is he so hell bent upon his abolition legislation that he ignores the response that is coming from local authorities and other people?

I do not believe that any inquiry into the abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC would serve any purpose. It is clear that there is widespread support in the metropolitan areas for the simplification of the structure of local government, and we are confident that it is the correct course to pursue.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the by-election inspired by Mr. Livingstone and his cohorts in August was an expensive and meaningless sham, that the turnout was ludicrously low; and that, in fact, the abolition of those authorities will return democracy not to Whitehall, as the advertisements would have us believe, but to the directly elected borough councils, which are very responsive to the needs and wishes of the ratepayers?

I agree with my hon. Friend that those manufactured by-elections were an expensive stunt which failed. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the GLC's entire propanganda campaign is founded upon a falsehood, in that it does not pay any attention to the 32 London boroughs and the City of London, which will inherit the vast majority of services which will be devolved from it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that whereas there may be some support, there is certainly widespread anxiety in the metropolitan counties that the details of the abolition proposals have not been thought out or argued through and that there is now a case in those six counties and in London for the Secretary of State to have a separate local inquiry, with the district and county authorities and the public making a contribution for the first time? Until that happens this will be a bigger muddle than any of the other reorganisations that local government has gone through at the behest of the Government and their Conservative predecessors.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have already dealt with the subject of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is holding in his hand the document in which we set out the details of how the services will be devolved to the lower, democratically elected tier of government. The matter will now be for debate in both this House and the other place when the Bill is introduced, as I hope it will be, early in the next Session of Parliament.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in essence his proposals represent an addition in powers to the district and borough councils, which are in closer contact with the electorate than the existing authorities, and that, that being so, his proposals are an extension, not a diminution, of democracy?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured his freedom. He is right. The district authorities in the metropolitan areas are the real organs of local government. They are closer to the people. There are many more councillors on those authorities who represent the people. This will be an extension of democracy, as my hon. Friend rightly said.

In personal terms, may I first say how much we welcome the presence of the Secretary of State today and the fact that he escaped the appalling and despicable violence in Brighton? We also welcome the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) to his new appointment as Minister for Local Government. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be something of an expert in doggerel and verse. It may be that he will be able to make something of Government policy.

The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has himself been urging that there should be an inquiry into the system of local government finance. That being so, I hope that he welcomed warmly my announcement at Brighton and a few weeks ago.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to introduce in the next Session of Parliament any changes in the structure of local government in the non-metropolitan counties in England.

No.

Does the Minister recognise that ever since his Government were elected their actions have severely, restricted the freedoms of local government? Is it not time that more power was given back to local government? Would it not be appropriate in such a review to introduce organic change and allow certain services to be given back to borough councils, which are closer to the people whom they represent? I have in mind, for example, social services, which would be more appropriately tied up with the housing service.

The hon. Gentleman has made the point that my right hon. Friend made about the abolition of the metropolitan counties. The Government are very much it favour of the devolution of services to local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) indicated, that is the thrust of our policy. I appreciate that Burnley used to be a county borough and that it had greater degree of independence in the past, but I think that the effect of the distribution of functions between the upper and lower tiers in the county councils which we an abolishing is that the senior partners will be the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he hay received on acid deposition; and if he will make statement.

In the last three months my right hon. Friend has received about 40 representations about the effects of acid deposition. We have also, of course, recently received the Environment Select Committee's report on this subject, to which the Government's response will be published shortly.

Will the Minister undertake to publish that response as quickly as possible and ensure that there is a full debate in the House on the report of the Select Committee, as it is obvious from the evidence that the Select Committee received that the problem is extremely urgent? Damage is now occurring to the British environment as a result of sulphur and nitrogen emissions. We should be warned clearly in advance by the damage to forests and lakes in central Europe and Scandinavia.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is yes. The second part is not for me, but I shall report it to those who are responsible for such matters.

Although it may be necessary to press ahead with further scientific research into this serious problem, may I ask whether my hon. Friend and his Department accept that there is a strong argument for pursuing in parallel the imposition of special equipment in some power stations on a pilot basis to ascertain whether the practical effect would be to limit this harmful pollution?

That was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission to which the Government will be responding. It is worth remembering that Britain has made a major contribution already. That fact is sometimes forgotten. From the peak of our deposition we have achieved a diminution of nearly 40 per cent., which is more than can be said for any other country.

When does the Minister expect to respond to the reports of Royal Commission and of the Select Committee? When do the Government expect to be able to comply with the EEC directive on emission control? Will grants be made available to the ecclesiastical authorities in view of the damage that is being caused to many of our churches by acid deposition?

There will be no unnecessary delay in response to the reports of the Royal Commission and of the Select Committee. The negotiations on the large plan directive have only just started. The British Government and many other countries, have serious reservations about the target figures for sulphur and nitrogen that appear it the draft proposals.

If the Government are shortly to make a response to the Select Committee's report, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Committee's recommendation, that new motor vehicles should be designed so that then is a 40 per cent. reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions, both a feasible and practical step to take?

Without pre-empting the response to the Select Committee's report, I can say that the Government have made no secret of their view that the lean-burn engine, the route recommended by the Select Committee, is the sensible way to proceed.

In the light of the Select Committee's report, the Royal Commission's report and growing public concern on this issue, will the Minister face his international and national responsibilities and instigate immediate action, and, in addition, set up a national inquiry into the effect of acidic emissions on both urban and rural environments?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, calls for immediate action and inquiries are perhaps the easy part of the response. The British contribution to diminishing the output of acid emission into the atmosphere has been considerable. I do not agree with Labour Members that the reduction is the result of the recession. Fuel substitution and fuel economy have played a major part in the diminution. We should not rush into action without taking a careful view of the costs and benefits involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental implications of the proposed development of the onshore oilfield at Wytch Farm.

I understand that BP's proposals at Wytch Farm are currently subject to consultation with interested parties, and a planning application is expected in due course. I am well aware of the sensitive environmental issues raised by these proposals, and would expect any application to be subject to rigorous scrutiny by Dorset county council in the first instance.

I appreciate the national importance of the sensitive ecological site at Wytch Farm, but will the Minister use his good offices to require British Petroleum, if he thinks that it is not measuring up to the needs of the site, to undertake a complete hydrological survey of the Poole harbour area and an ecological survey of the island and the Studland peninsula?

In the first instance, as I said in my original reply, this must be a matter for Dorset county council in the light of the policies of its approved structure plan and other considerations. I am glad that widespread consultation is taking place. I pay tribute to the county council for imposing restrictions on the first development of Wytch Farm which have made it environmentally acceptable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that close consultation and co-operation is already taking place between BP and the local authorities? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to protect the environmental safety of Poole harbour, because it is not only a unique leisure and commercial centre but a source of income for local fishermen? I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured that we on the south coast are as concerned about the environment as anyone from the more northern parts of the kingdom.

I fully support what my hon. Friend has said. Poole harbour is an important place, for recreation, leisure and environmental reasons. I am glad that widespread consultations are occurring. I would have excepted Dorset county council to undertake those consultatons and to hold the public meetings it has arranged. I assure the House that onshore oil and gas development will not be permitted to proceed unless the proposals are environmentally acceptable.

I accept that we need to be ultra vigilant about protecting the environment in south Dorset, but does my hon. Friend agree that BP has shown itself to be a highly responsible organisation in protecting the environment and in its obligations to the local communities, particularly with the Sullom Voe oil terminal in the Shetlands, and that is no reason to suppose that it will not act in the same way at Wytch Farm?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There must be responsibility in these matters on all sides. I pay tribute to BP for what it has done in its developments in north Scotland and the islands. I am glad that there are widespread consultations involving the people living locally whom my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) represent.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to enable permanently settled dwellers in mobile homes to claim compensation for noise and disturbance resulting from the construction of a motorway.

We have no plans to do so.

Does my hon. Friend realise that constituents in Woodbine Close, who are ratepayers in Epping Forest, live and suffer as close to the M25 as I am to you, Mr. Speaker, but are denied compensation as mobile home dwellers? Since they are in fact permanent dwellers, will my hon. Friend ensure that they obtain justice?

My hon. Friend has brought this case to the Department's attention. Changing the Land Compensation Act 1973 is a complicated matter. My hon. Friend might consider discussing the matter with Ministers to ascertain whether we can find a way through the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he expects more local authority houses to be started in the financial year 1985–86 than in 1984–85.

It is up to local authorities to decide, within the resources made available to them, how many houses to start in each financial year. For that reason, the Department does not make forecasts of house building starts. Decisions about resources which will be made available for local authority housing next year have still to be taken.

Does the Minister agree that since 1979 local authority housing capital expenditure has been cut by about 50 per cent.? Does he further agree that if that position continues we shall face a crisis similar to that in the 1960s? At that time, Governments were encouraging local authorities to go into the development of factory-built houses. Consequently, the nation is now facing a bill of about £10 million to demolish or repair those properties.

In the current financial year we have made available for public sector capital investment in housing more than £3·25 billion, of which the local authority share is £2·5 billion. The particular needs of each authority will be taken into account before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes next year's housing investment allocations to each local authority.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than continuing to build more new council houses, local authorities would do better employing the available resources to bring back into service those council house properties that have been left empty for many months and are a deteriorating eyesore in local communities?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. More than 25,000 local authority dwellings have been empty for more than a year—the majority in authorities controlled by the Labour party.

Does the Minister accept that, because in recent years we have been clearing no more than between one five-hundredth and one one-thousandth of the housing stock annually, we are merely storing up enormous trouble for years ahead? As that is happening when there is high unemployment in the building industry, the practice can only be regarded as absurd and dangerous.

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the very substantial sums which the Government have made available for public sector housing this year.

The Minister is steering his Department towards a new slumdon and housing crisis, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the back seat driver. Has he not noticed the evidence of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to the inquiry into British housing, that it will take 900 years to replace the present deteriorating stock, and that public expenditure on housing has now been cut by two thirds since 1979? I ask the hon. Gentleman to start to use a combination of both humanity and common sense and to put public expenditure on housing on to an upward trend to solve human problems and to provide employment.

The hon. Gentleman's memory is characteristically selective. He will remember that when he first entered the House he was a member of Lambeth borough council and that the system of control of local authority capital expenditure which then applied was far more detailed than is the case today. I also remind him that between 1974 and 1979, when he adorned the Labour Government, public sector investment in housing fell by 45 per cent. While this Government have been in power it has fallen by 17 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will also remember the letter which his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor wrote on 15 December 1976 following a cut of £1 billion in public expenditure under the Government of which he was a member.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to make further savings to reduce the projected total running costs of his Department in 1984–85.

I use MINIS and my Department's budgeting systems to keep these costs under close and regular review.

Will my right hon. Friend indicate the reduction in staff numbers and the consequent economies achieved since he took office?

Since the Government took office in 1979, over the past five years the number of staff in post in the Department of the Environment, central, has been reduced by 41 per cent., from over 11,000 to 6,600. The number in the Property Services Agency has been reduced by 30 per cent., from 39,000 to 27,200. After allowing for the cost of work contracted out, the resulting savings over the five-year period amount to almost £200 million.

We notice with great interest the new Minister for Local Government, who comes like hangman's rope to support the Secretary of State. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his new Minister how many staff are employed in the Department of the Environment on matters associated with the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils and how much it is costing?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question, we shall give him an answer.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the economies he has made in his Department. Will he have a look at another way in which substantial economies can be made in many midland cities—by encouraging some reluctant city councils to stop sitting on large parcels of derelict land which, for some reason or other, they seem to be disinclined to sell for housing purposes?

My hon. Friend will have noticed that we recently served the first notices under the land registration procedures under the 1980 Act. We have already had success, in that some of those parcels of land have now been sold. We shall pursue others to completion. On the basis of our success, I give the warning that if authorities unnecessarily hold on to land for which they have no immediate purpose, we will take steps to ensure that it is put on the market to be used for housing and other purposes. It is absurd that substantial quantities of often urban land are sterilised in this way because public authorities are not prepared to dispose of them.

Could not the Secretary of State save some of his Department's costs by scrapping the advertising campaign—[Interruption]—on the unpopular Rates Act, which is just a waste of taxpayers' money?

I think the hon. Gentleman recognises that he has scored an own goal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes meeting the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss the designations made under the Rates Act.

The AMA has not asked for such a meeting; if it does I will be happy to meet the chairman.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when he announced the expenditure levels for the designated authorities he gave the impression that they would have to cut their expenditure by 5 or 6 per cent.? Does he now accept that the average reduction being sought from them is 11 per cent., and that Camden council is expected to cut its spending by 15 per cent., Lewisham by 14 per cent. and Leicester by 15 per cent.? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that he is trying to perpetrate a totally monstrous deception on the people in those areas, and on the House?

It is nothing of the sort. We made it clear that our intention is that the real spending of local authorities should be held to the same cash level next year as this year. Of course, we do not have information, and the authorities are not obliged to supply any information, on their use of funds and other balances and accounting devices which they may have used to reach this year's expenditure. That is precisely why the House provided those authorities which felt that the limit which we had set was unreasonable with an opportunity to come along and seek a redetermination of it. However, it is a fact that none has done so. I must assume from that that the authorities are perfectly prepared to live within the limit that I have set.

Does the Secretary of State not yet understand that rate-capped authorities are effectively prevented from seeking formal derogation, because to do so would automatically bestow on him wide-ranging powers of interference in their internal affairs? Given that, is he willing to hold informal discussions with those rate-capped authorities which are anxious to show him that the expenditure ceilings imposed on them are unreasonably harsh?

The hon. Gentleman knows that such informal discussions are taking place in a number of cases. I am aware of the anxiety that some councils have expressed and that is why I have made it abundantly clear—I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of what I said to the AMA at Doncaster — that it is no part of the Government's intention to interfere in the details of local authority spending. My only concern is to set the upper limit in accordance with the powers that the House has conferred on the Government Any authority which is worried that to apply for a redetermination will allow me to interfere right across the board can dismiss its concern. That is not my intention. I should add that it is not too late for those who feel that the limit is unreasonable to come along and apply for a redetermination.

In addition to discussing any of the points raised by Opposition Members, will my right hon. Friend never lose an opportunity to put it to the chairman of the AMA that high penal rates on industry inevitably mean lost jobs?

That is one of the main reasons why we introduced, and the House passed, the Rates Act giving us powers to cut the rates of the highest spending local authorities.

Is it not dishonest of the Secretary of State to say that he did not have information from local authorities about their expenditure from balances and reserves? Was not such information given to him by authorities in the normal returns that they send to his Department? Was not he admitting, at the AMA conference at Doncaster, that he had that information and that his statement to the House that cuts in budgets of 5 per cent. were all that were required was patently dishonest? As he very well knows, the average cut being required of local authorities is of the order of 10 to 11 per cent. Why does he not come clean and admit it?

My officials do not have the details on the use of funds and balances and other accounting devices that are used by local authorities to arrive at this year's budget—[Interruption] We do not have a complete picture. I am sure that it was right to start from the published figures and to say that our intention was that authorities should spend no more next year than they are spending in cash this year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he now estimates the effect will be on public housing starts of his announcement of 18 July about local authority capital expenditure.

It is for each local authority to decide which projects, if any, need to be delayed in order to comply with my right hon. Friend's request for restraint.

How much money was seized by the Treasury from local authorities when they were prevented from spending the capital receipts from the sales of council houses sold before the beginning of this financial year? How many houses could have been built or improved if local authorities could have spent that money? Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that no more housing investment cuts will be made in the current financial year?

The request by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 18 July was made so that local authority capital expenditure this year should not breach what everybody understood and knew to be the limit placed by the Government. It was a request only to stay within the previously announced cash limit. Many local authorities are complying with my right hon. Friend's request for restraint and I hope that all will continue to do so.

To relieve local authorities of the problems of providing adequate housing for rent, why does my hon. Friend not redouble his efforts to persuade institutions such as property funds and building societies to take a greater interest in progressively providing housing for rent? In the process of such discussions, will he not entirely exclude the possibility of one day privatising the Housing Corporation?

We have no plans to privatise the Housing Corporation. I am happy to pay tribute to the voluntary housing movement, which has rendered immense service to the cause of housing the British people. My hon. Friend asks about the provision of housing for rent. Not the least of the problems in connection with accommodation for rent in the private sector is the Labour party's attitude, which has discouraged people from providing such houses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are incurring holdback on the basis of their 1984–85 budgets.

There are currently 139 English local authorities incurring holdback on the basis of the 1984–85 budgets.

Is the Minister aware that hundreds of billions of pounds are being taken away from local authorities by the holdback policy? Should he not now consider giving local authorities the power to spend some of their own money without so much restriction? Is the Minister aware that authorities such as Mid-Glamorgan will have to cut essential services such as nursery provision as a direct result of the Government's holdback policies? Is it not time for the Government to give serious consideration to helping such authorities, so that they can retain essential and legal responsibilities?

Mid-Glamorgan's position is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales. I have enough problems with English authorities. Every Government since the war have taken a view on the aggregate total amount of local expenditure. We have introduced a system which ensures that Government spending at local level is constrained. Even so, there will be an overspend this year of about £848 million, 75 per cent. of which involves only 12 councils.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to date from those local authorities designated under the Rates Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities and others concerning his rate-capping proposals; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations, but no authority has applied for a redetermination of its expenditure level.

It is well-known that there has been a great wave of protest from both Conservative and Labour-controlled designated authorities and from members of all parties who are members of those authorities. Is the right hon. Gentleman taking the least notice of such representations, or is he just thumbing his nose at those people?

Two authorities led by Conservative councillors, Portsmouth and Brent, have told me that it is their intention to tailor their expenditure to live within the limits that we have set. One of those authorities has said that it hopes to get down to its target, and I welcome that. As to the remaining 16 authorities, I can only repeat what I said earlier. The fact that they have not applied for a redetermination means that they are prepared to live within whatever rates limits we set, following the expenditure limits announced in July.

Could one of the reasons why Basildon district council has not exercised its right under the Rates Act to appeal to the Secretary of State be found in the Audit Commission report on Basildon, commissioned by the district council, which showed—

It exonerates the council.

If it exonerates the council, why did the report claim that Basildon district council, compared with an average authority, spends £600,000 more on the administration of housing, or £100 more for every council house that it owns, than an average authority? Does that not make nonsense of prospects of cuts in real essential services in Basildon?

My hon. Friend is right, and it so happens that the cut in expenditure that Basildon would need to make to comply with the limit that I have set is precisely that sum of £600,000 which the Audit Commission identified as the excess housing administration expenditure compared with the generality of housing authorities.

If the Secretary of State is so adamant that he does not intend to use the powers given to him by the Rates Act to determine the individual details of local authority spending if local authorities seek redetermination under the Act, can he tell the House why he insisted, during the passage of that measure through the House, on the inclusion of those powers within the Act?

The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee, and he heard both me and my hon. Friends, speaking from the Front Bench on that Committee, explaining precisely the circumstances in which we would use the powers. Those are that, if we felt that an authority which came along and applied for redetermination could not make the necessary reductions in one year, we should put a condition on that it should do so in more than one year. I said that at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' conference and I say it again now.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that, no matter what representations or bleatings he may receive from Leicester city council, which, as he knows is Labour-controlled, he should ensure that rate capping is proceeded with in Leicester because the ratepayers and citizens alike need it and demand it today, not even tomorrow?

I can give my hon. Friend precisely the assurance that he seeks. The law is the law on the statute book. The procedures will be applied, and if Leicester does not apply for redetermination, a rate will be set which will be relative to the expenditure limit that we have fixed for it. I can tell my hon. Friend that in that case the rates in Leicester will be lower than they otherwise would have been.

Does the Secretary of State understand that local authorities which are rate-capped feel themselves to be caught in a "Catch-22" situation by the Secretary of State's powers to impose lower expenditure limits or higher limits with conditions if a redetermination is applied for? Does he also understand that such is the breakdown of trust of Labour and Conservative authorities of his Department and the Ministers that, in the absence of categorical and bankable assurances that he will not impose conditions or lower limits, authorities are scared about making applications to him?

Of course I will not. The Act lays down the procedure for those discussions to take place. They need to be initiated by the authorities concerned, and it is up to them to use the procedures.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment against what criteria he has exempted three London boroughs from designating gipsy sites; and if he will make a statement.

In designating Camden, Islington and Westminster, account was taken of the exceptional difficulty in these three inner London boroughs of finding land suitable for a gipsy site and of the size and nature of the gipsy presence in those areas. The decisions in each case were taken by the then Secretaries of State and the relevant statutory instruments were approved by Parliament.

Bearing in mind that thousands of my constituents have attended public meetings on this matter, may I ask for my hon. Friend's assistance in resisting GLC and Labour party pressure to redesignate Kensington road and Ruislip road in my consitituency as gipsy sites? The people of the area suffered vandalism, theft and other troubles from these tinkers. [Interruption.] Oh yes, they did. It is no good Labour Members saying anything else. Why should Ealing be designated as a gipsy authority? There is no more land in Ealing than there is in the three boroughs mentioned in my hon. Friend's reply. If they do not have to have gipsies on Hampstead Heath, because of Labour politicians, why do we have to have them in Ealing?

I understand my hon. Friend's depth of feeling and I ackowledge the great tenacity that he has shown in pursuing the interests of his constituents. He will know that on 11 September a meeting took place between representatives of the London borough of Ealing and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, at which the borough acknowledged that it was necessary for it to find a suitable gipsy site. Correspondence between the borough and my hon. Friend is continuing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of unmet housing need in inner London.

The assessment of housing need is primarily a matter for the local authorities concerned. The Government's assessment is based on the generalised needs index, which is discussed each year with the local authority associations, supplemented by information provided by the inner London boroughs and the GLC in their annual housing investment programme bids.

When will the Minister accept that there is a desperate housing shortage, particularly in inner London, but also in other parts of the country? When will he accept that the shortage means that families with young children are trapped in tower blocks, that families which ought to be given transfers on medical grounds have no way of getting out and that it is offensive to such badly housed families that local authorities such as the Conservative London borough of Wandsworth should have sold empty council houses, which are standing empty again as the buyers try to sell them and make a profit?

The HIP allocation for the London borough of Wandsworth was increased by 5 per cent. this year, and only two boroughs received a higher proportionate increase. The number of improvement grants in the borough increased from 423 in 1981–82 to 2,500 last year and the borough has received £65 million from the sale of council houses. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that the sale of council houses has generated additional resources for hard-pressed boroughs such as Wandsworth.

Is my hon. Friend aware that large sums are being paid by the DHSS to recipients of unemployment benefit and social security to make mortgage interest repayments and that those sums are being suborned because they are being paid direct to the claimants rather than to the building societies?

Order. The question on the Order Paper refers to housing need in inner London.

I should like to relate the question to housing needs, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I am sorry, but the question must be related to inner London.

Can the Under-Secretary tell us what positive steps the Government are taking to deal with the amount of empty property in inner London—not only public but private—particularly as the problem is affected by the legislation introduced earlier this Session? What are they doing about the severe problem caused by the fact that whereas 70 per cent. of Londoners earn £9,000 a year or less, the average price of a one or two-bedroomed property is now £30,000 or more? Many people are not able to exercise the right to buy, and many young Londoners are being forced out of inner London if they want to live in their own homes.

The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the fact that on 1 April this year over 31,000 dwellings owned by the public sector in London were empty. My Department has initiated a series of meetings with the 30 worst offenders, and we hope to announce the results of that exercise quite soon and to take further initiatives. The recent increase in discounts brought in by the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 will, I hope, bring within the reach of more people in London the opportunity of home ownership.

Will the Minister admit that inner London has an acute housing problem? Will he undertake that there will be no cuts in the housing investment programmes for the inner London boroughs in the review of housing investment for next year, which the Department must now be undertaking?

On the question of public sector investment, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to an excellent article today in The Guardian, which I am sure he reads. The heading is:

"In the beginning was the council estate".

"It is the total dependance on the public sector which has created the problem in the first place … We have got to involve the private sector in the solution."

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to extend his restrictions on the borrowing requirement of local authorities to those private companies now contracting for local authority work.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 26 September that in the light of the latest figures the present restraint on local authority capital expeniture would have to continue. This leaves authorities free to place new contracts within certain limits. We are asking authorities which have entered into commitments up to or beyond those limits not to let further contracts, to the private sector or otherwise, but there is no question of any authority having to withdraw from existing contracts.

Does the Minister recollect a circular issued by his Department advising local authorities that investment in contractors' plant and machinery is inflationary and therefore should be cut? Why then is investment in contractors' plant and machinery in private undertakings deflationary?

If I may say so without appearing discourteous, the hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. If a local authority wishes to let a capital contract, it can do so either to the private sector or to its own direct labour organisation. The direct labour organisation is, of course, free to compete for the contract.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will convene a meeting of interested bodies to discuss the future of Peterlee development corporation.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend held such a meeting on 1 August in connection with the future of Aycliffe, Peterlee and Washington development corporations and is now considering his decision on the future of these three new towns. In addition, my noble Friend Lord Bellwin visited the area in July of this year.

That is not quite correct. The meeting did not include everyone who was interested in the Peterlee development corporation. If the Minister were to convene such a meeting, he would find that every organisation is completely opposed to the proposal to abolish the development corporation next year. Does the Minister not appreciate that to abolish the only job-finding agency in an area where unemployment is approaching 20 per cent. would be an act of the utmost folly? Why should that body be abolished when it has attracted 6,000 new jobs to the area in recent years?

I recognise that in the responses to our consultation document there was virtually unanimous support in the region for the continuation of the development corporations. Ministers were impressed by the degree of support that the development corporations have generated while they have been in being. On his last point, I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient for a little while longer. My right hon. Friend must consider the issues raised during consultation, but we hope to reach a decision very soon.

Will my hon. Friend make it his policy to wind up development corporations in Peterlee and elsewhere as quickly as is practicable?

The Government's policy is to bring to an end the life of the development corporations when they have completed the tasks set out for them.

Does the Minister not agree that the wind-up of the Peterlee, Aycliffe and Washington development corporations, when unemployment in the north of England is at a record level, would be an absolute disaster? The Minister said that he would give an answer as soon as possible. Does he not remember that interested parties from Aycliffe and Washington met him before the recess, when it was implied that the result of the discussions would be given to them before Parliament reconvened? We have not yet been told of the decision, and that is causing many people great anxiety. When will he tell us?

I recognise the need to reach a decision soon, and I hope that we can do so in the very near future. I can confirm that the continuing high level of unemployment in the northeast was a reason put forward for the continuation of the corporations. Ministers will certainly take that into account.

Does the Minister not recognise that to abolish the new town corporations in the northern region would be a hammer blow? Has not that area recently been further damaged by losses of jobs in the shipyards on Tyneside? Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the role played by the Washington development corporation, together with local authorities, in bringing Nissan to the northern region? That is the sort of point that we w ant him to take on board. It would be devastating for the region if it lost those development corporations.

If we had pursued the wind-up dates set down by the Opposition, one of those development corporations would already have ceased to exist.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with safeguards that exist for wildlife and landscape in those areas which have no designation under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir, I am satisfied in general. All local planning authorities, including London borough councils, have power under section 39 of the Act to enter into management agreements for the purposes of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside or for promoting its enjoyment by the public.

Is my hon. Friend aware that during the summer extensive tree felling and scrub clearance was carried out by a thoughtless farmer in Mollards Wood, causing great annoyance and anxiety to a large number of residents? Would it not be simple and entirely reasonable in such circumstances to require a farmer to give six months' notice of his intention to carry out any work that might alter the landscape or affect the wildlife? Why cannot that be done?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Forestry Commission is still pursuing the question whether the felling licence was complied with, which may be relevent here. Although there are powers relating to the areas that have been designated, especially by the Nature Conservancy Council, as ecologically important, my hon. Friend is asking for a very wide extension of those powers over the remainder of the countryside, which would be difficult.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is widespread concern that the Wildlife and. Countryside Act 1981 is not having the intended effect — as many people warned when it went through Parliament? Will the hon. Gentleman have special concern for the provision of marine nature reserves, which were a matter of some argument during the passage of the Bill, and which the Government appear to be ignoring?

There is widespread support for the Act. A positive new consensus has began to emerge on countryside management, and the Act has played an important part in that. The marine nature reserves are not a matter for the Government in the first instance. The two cases that have been pursued have both run into complex difficulties. However, I am keeping an eye on the position.

Does my hon. Friend accept that unneccessary drainage to add to agricultural surpluses has had a major impact on wildlife in the countryside? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the review of drainage which is now long overdue, and should be forthcoming? Should not that review make large drainage schemes subject to scrutiny?

My Department has been closely involved with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the review. My right hon. Friend the Minister will publish a discussion document shortly.

Does the Minister appreciate that parts of the Act have turned our countryside into disaster areas? Does he not recall the repeated offers from the Labour Opposition to assist the Government with remedial legislation? Why has he not acted on that offer? Will he tell the House of his plans to preserve parts of the countryside?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to blame the Wildlife and Countryside Act. If the Act had not been there, the damage would have been greater. However, I accept his point that it is necessary to make improvements to the Act. I am grateful for his offer of help, which we may shortly take up.